Re: /run and read-only /etc
On Tue, 2003-04-08 at 03:03, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> All the changes needed are not worth this.
So you're not volunteering to lead this project, I guess. ;)
(Re: /etc/nologin)
> A dangling symlink should be considered like a missing file.
Yes, that would work. However, having separate /etc/nologin
and /run/nologin looks like a useful feature, as I mentioned
earlier.
> You can include a file even inside the options keyword.
I'm glad to hear this because it means that one could include
a file containing only the "forwarders { }" statement.
However, allowing programs to write bits of named's
configuration file and to restart named still seems kludgy.
It would be better if there were a standard way for programs
to inform named of appearing and disappearing forwarders.
--
Thomas Hood <jdthood0@yahoo.co.uk>
Reply to: